In article , Jim Cate
wrote:

Jeff Morris wrote:

"Jim Cate" wrote in message
...

Jeff Morris wrote:

"Jim Cate" wrote in message

A. The swing keel and the (200 gallon) longitudinal open cavity built
into the hull for receiving the keel (when the keel was retracted
upwardly into the slot) has been eliminated in the 26M, eliminating the
drag produced by the large open cavity.


\

You asked us to point out one of your "ridiculous and false" claims. How

about

your claim of a "200 gallon cavity" which I already showed was absurd. Why
don't you do the calculation of how many cubic feet 200 gallons is?

I have other things to do, Jeff. - If you want to know how many cubic
feet it is, have at it.



Sorry Jim, I though a sailor with your experience would know that a cubic
foot
of water is about 8 gallons. It only takes a few seconds to deduce that its
about 25 cubic feet (actually 26.7 cubic feet). You could also visualize a
water tank - the large one under my settee holds 80 gallons. Or you could
visualize 400 half gallon milk containers. Any way you do it, a "200 gallon
open cavity" is totally absurd.

Its very telling that last week you ignored me when I've pointed this out,
and
now you're trying to sidestep it. This is one of your "ridiculous and
false"
claims, and of course you fighting tooth and nail to avoid confronting it.

BTW, the size of the cavity is more likely a few cubic feet - 6 inches wide
by 6
feet long by 1 foot draft would yield 3 cubic feet.

Jeff, I'm a registered patent attorney, I have over 20 hours of college
physics, 18 hours of Math, etc.

Bwahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahah a..............

Less than 2 weeks of a college (university) course and you're boasting
about it??????

Bwahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahah a..............

PDW

"Jim Cate" wrote in message
...

Yes, a majority do sail them safely. Actually, a majority of the Macs I've
seen
hardly leave the dock, but that can be said of many boats. Of course, a 50%
average is not what one should hope for. I wasn't claiming the boat was
completely unsafe; I was pointing out that it isn't correct to tout the
boat's
stability when its capable of rolling over at anchor in calm conditions.


The Mac 26 is a water ballast boat, and MacGregor specifically warns
against permitting passengers on deck without the water ballast. In the
case with the drunk skipper, the boat was severely overloaded, even for
"full ballast" conditions. This doesn't mean that the boat is faulty; it
means that the skipper shouldn't be driving drunk and ignoring the most
basic characteristics of the boat.


When I pointed out all those warning you just claimed it was silly lawyer talk.
Now you're admitting that perhaps they were deadly serious.

You keep claiming the boat was "severly overloaded" but there were only eight
adults on deck. So are you claiming the boat is safe for six adults but
dangerous for eight? This seems like a rather slim margin of error here.

Bottom line Jim, the best indicator of a boat's resale value is the previous
offerings of the company, especially when the boats are so similar. A fully
loaded 26X was over $30K 4 or 5 years ago. The 26X depreciated roughly 50%
in
the last 5 years - that's pretty abysmal! All your talk about values of the
previous after the introduction of new models is just plain salesmen's
gibberish.


Since I just paid about $30K for a 2004 26M that was equipped with
autosteering, GPS chartplotter and sounder, VHF, bimini, roller reefing,
three sails, stereo, two batteries, solar panel, three reefing points,
lines led to cockpit, trailer, TTW knot meter, compass, additional depth
finder, 50 Hp motor, etc., etc.,

And you had it deleived in under 5 weeks. Yet you also claimed they were in
high demand and people were waiting a long time for them. Its it look more like
your dealer was trying to dump this boat on you.


I doubt seriously that most purchasers
of the 26X were paying $30K five years ago.

OK, here's a link to a 2001 26X that says "Original Cost over $33,000," 3 years
later he's asking $22K, would probably accept $19K:
http://www.macgregor-boats.com/4sale/4sale.html
Further down on the page is another 2002 26X for $22K.

A while back a link was posted to an add for a 2000 model that showed the
orignal invoice at around $32K.




The point I was making is
that 30% depreciation on a $30K boat isn't as much as 15% depreciation
on a $150K boat. In other words, even if my boat depreciated 50%, I
wouldn't be losing all that much compared with owners of many keel boats
bought new who also pay higher slip fees, maintenance, and other costs
that go with keeping up a larger, in-the-water boat.

Yes, its true that big boats cost more to own than small boats. You can
rationalize this all you want, but its still isn't right to claim that Macs hold
their value well when the evidence is just the opposite.





See comments above. - When viewed in light of the selling prices at the
time of original purchase, the Mac 26X prices you list are remarkably high.


Wrong Jim, those boats probably sold for about $30K, maybe even higher.

Nope.

You can hold you breath til you turn blue, but I keep posting links that prove
you wrong!

....

Jeff, your "logic" is something else. - It's interesting that you jump
from a reference to speed numbers achievable only without the ballast to
the "drunken skipper" incident, in which you admit up front that the
boat was SITTING AT ANCHOR with multiple passengers (a circumstance in
which there was no possible excuse or reason for the ballast to be empty).


So you're saying the boat can be dangerous both moving fast and standing
still?
So when exectly is the boat safe?

The boat is safe when sailed or motored or anchored except when grossly
overloaded.

The boat rolled with 8 adults on deck. You're syaing the 6 is OK but 8 is
grossly overloaded? And you're also claiming the that boat is "extremely
stable"?


In particular, the boat is unsafe without the water ballast
except in certain specifically designated conditions (motoring with
moderate load in moderate weather conditions.)

They also warn again having anyone on deck, or even in the forward bunk. Or
even too much weight on one side of the cockpit. Right Jim, this is a real
stable boat.




My point has been throughout that the boat is only safe with the ballast.
You,
however, repeatedly claimed speed numbers only acheivable without ballast.
(Not only that, they were acheived without a mast, crew or gear!). Now
you're
just backpedaling.

Nope. If I'm going to bring families with children aboard the boat, I'm
CERTAINLY NOT going to try to reach any speed records. How dense can you
be to suggest that, because the boat is capable of slightly higher
speeds with a light load without the water ballast, that I should be
held to those conditions (no water ballast) under all circumstances.

You're the one who kept touting the speed. All I've been saying is that in real
life, the high speed quoted are not just unrealistic, but absurd. Now you're
furiously backpedaling, claiming that you would never actually try that
yourself! A few months ago you were talking about how great it is that you can
scoot out to the ocean at 18 knots with your grandkids, and get back fast when
the weather turns bad. The reason why I even start this discussion was to point
out the most Mac owners said the 10-12 mph was the highest actually achieved.


You're the one who keeps claiming great performance. You've been listing
features that are common on many, many boats. Admittedly, your boat has a
unique combination, but that can be said of many boats. My point is that
having a common feature, like an adjustable jib track or a traveler does not
make a slow boat fast. All it really does is allow an incompetent skipper
to
screw up worse.


The point of my posting this list of adjustments was that you had
implied that the only thing I had in mind was the new traveler.
Obviously, that wasn't the case. Further, if you were honest, you would
admit that several of the above-listed features are not available on
many of the boats discussed on this ng. - If you were honest, that is.

Several of the features are unique - not too many cruising boats have twin,
foldup rudders. My boat has twin rudders, though, and it can be ordered with
daggerboards, lift-up outboards, and a rotating mast. Most have reefing, roller
jibs, adjustable track, cockpit controls, etc. Rigs can be tuned, fractional
rigs can be tuned more, etc.

But what's the point? Does it make the boat substanially faster? Only in the
marketing literature. And your imagination.

Ranting about these features over and over is meaningless. Sail the boat, give
us some real numbers.



You've talked many times about "substantial speed," even implied it can

plane

under sail.

The reports I see from Mac owners on several of the Mac discussion
groups are that the boats WILL plane under sail. Since I haven't done it
on my boat, I can't verify it, but that's what other Mac owners tell me.


I think you'd find that virtually all of these cases involved fairly strong
wind, flat seas, and no ballast. In those conditions its should be able to
plane, though not at extreme speeds. Add a spinnaker and a trapeze and you
might have something.




So instead of parroting the marketing bull****, why don;t you sail the boat

and

tell us about your experiances?

\

Actually, I have sailed the boat, and I have provided reports stating
that it's a fun boat to sail with lots of capabilities. For example, I
noticed a significant increase in speed, on a reach, with the reduced
drag obtained when one of the rudders was pulled up, motor out of the
water, and daggerboard partially up. I haven't had the knotmeter
installed yet, so I can't provide any specific figures.


A GPS would give you SOG.

Not mine.

What? Now you're claiming you bought a GPS that doesn't give SOG?

It's also connected to a paddle wheel in-the-water sensor
mounted on the transom, and should give knot readings from from either
the GPS or the sensor. (Although the installation isn't complete, and I
haven't seen it working yet.) Also, the SOG speed read from the GPS can
be averaged from runs in two directions.


Regarding your admonition for me to quit parroting the marketing
bull****, my suggestion to YOU is to quit repeating the usual
Mac-bashing stories and go back to school. - Take a basic course in
logic, Jeff. It might be helpful.


Sorry Jim, you misunderstand my intent. I have no desire to bash Macs,
there
are plenty of others who will do that. I've even said on occasion that macs
might be the best fit for some, and that I've been impressed that sometimes
I've
seen Macs used to advantage. My overall impression, after observing
Macgregor's
boat for 30 years, has been negative. But I've applauded his innovative
approach to certain issues.

My complaints have not been about the Mac itself, its been about your blind
misuse of the marketing claims. You've claimed speeds that can only be
achieved
by a stripped down boat.

By which you mean a boat with one or two passengers? What else to I have
to throw overboard to get a "stripped down boat" according to your
definition?

The speeds often quoted were without rig - that's leaving the mast behind,
without ballast - you've admitted that's unsafe at speed, and with one
underweight skipper. You can be sure they also left the ice chest and the
anchor at the dock.

I never said that the boat sailed or motored at top rated
speeds with multiple passengers and a heavy load. AND YOU KNOW IT.
Neither does MacGregor, incidentally.

You kept claiming the high speeds even after I pointed out that they were
without the rig and without ballast., I posted links to owners that report 12
mph as a practical top speed, but you ignored those.



You've claimed sailing performance that can only be
achieved by violating the safely warnings.

Nope. I've said that the boat can plane under certain conditions. Which
I believe to be true, and which other Mac owners also claim. I don't
intend to violate any "safely" warnings.

OK, tell us when you do 8 knots under sail with full ballast. Then I'll be
impressed.



You've claimed that the stability
warnings are just lawyer talk,

Jeff, the wording of the warning on the new boat and on the front page
of the owners manual are as follows:

THE WATER BALLAST TANK SHOULD BE FULL WHEN EITHER POWERING OR SAILING.
(Capitalized, underlined.) A few lines down we have the statement: "If
you choose to operate the boat with an empty tank, see the section on
operating the boat without the water ballast."

Tell me, Jeff, do you really think there were no attorney inputs to the
wording of that warning? Don't get me wrong, I personally don't intend
to operate the boat without the ballast under either power or sail until
I am thoroughly experienced, and then only in very moderate conditions,
following the instructions precisely.

Holy Backpedal, Batman!!!!




when its clear they were deadly serious. You've
claimed low depreciation when the evidence is just the opposite.

We have gone through this about five times, Jeff. What I've claimed is
that the overall costs, including depreciation, slip fees (none),
maintenance, insurance ($200 per year), interest, bottom jobs (none),
costs of new sails, etc., etc., are moderate compared with other boats.

They should be the same as any other 26 foot trailer boat. The costs are more
than a smaller boat, less than a bigger boat.

What's your point? You've claimed they have low depreciation. I've showed a
significant number of cases where the depreciation is rather high. Now you're
just shifted your argument to saying there are no slip fees, or that because the
value is low, the insurance is low. You're right, its a cheap boat. Cheap to
operate, cheap to insure. Even with high depreciation its still cheap. I don't
think you'll find an disagreement that its cheap.



You've touted
all sorts of "unique features," most of which have been available on lots of
boats for many years. And you repeat the claims long after the fallacies
have
been pointed out.

And you continue to ignore the words of my notes and the context in
which such lists of features were listed, Jeff. I never said that the
Mac 26M was the ONLY boat to have those features. What I said was that
the 26M provides a PACKAGE or COMBINATION of features that is rather
extensive, with lots of choices for tuning the boat, and that, moreover,
some of the features are not generally available on most sailboats
discussed on this ng.

Actually, most of them are available on most of the boats. No real sailor would
waste any time claiming that his boat had reef points, or an adjustable jib
track. In fact, you can read all of the posts ever made to this board in the
last decade, and you won't find anyone who touted trivial features of their boat
as much as you have.

You keep trying to justify your nonsense by saying that your combination is
unique, but the bottom line is that the unique feature is that they sacrifised
sailing performance and stability for performance under power. That's it, in a
nutshell. If that's what you really want, fine, you bought the right boat.


No Jim, I haven't been "Mac Bashing," I've been "Jim Bashing."



Don't look now, but you're not doing a very good job of bashing either
me or the Macs.

Actually Jim, you've done a better job than I ever could!

Your problem is that if you read my notes and answered
them as they are written, you wouldn't have much to say. Regarding most
of the issues discussed above, you simply don't get it, Jeff.

Don't worry - I think everyone gets it.

Good one Horass... they don't "consider" you a fag.

--
"j" ganz @@
www.sailnow.com

"Horvath" wrote in message
...
On Sun, 25 Jul 2004 17:57:05 -0700, "Jonathan Ganz"
wrote this crap:

This from a fag boy who owns a piece of junk hunter.


The girls at the strip club don't consider me a fag, dumbass. And my
sails are worth more than your boat. I've won quite a few trophies
for someone with a junk boat.

Meanwhile, you sail a POS that someone was throwing out.




Pathetic Earthlings! No one can save you now!

In article , Jeff Morris
wrote:

"Jim Cate" wrote in message
...

Sorry Jim, I though a sailor with your experience would know that a cubic
foot
of water is about 8 gallons. It only takes a few seconds to deduce that
its
about 25 cubic feet (actually 26.7 cubic feet). You could also visualize
a
water tank - the large one under my settee holds 80 gallons. Or you could
visualize 400 half gallon milk containers. Any way you do it, a "200
gallon
open cavity" is totally absurd.

Its very telling that last week you ignored me when I've pointed this out,
and
now you're trying to sidestep it. This is one of your "ridiculous and
false"
claims, and of course you fighting tooth and nail to avoid confronting it.

BTW, the size of the cavity is more likely a few cubic feet - 6 inches
wide
by 6
feet long by 1 foot draft would yield 3 cubic feet.

Jeff, I'm a registered patent attorney, I have over 20 hours of college
physics, 18 hours of Math, etc. I assure you that I'm capable of
converting gallons to cubic feet, cubic inches, cubic meters, cubic
centimeters, pounds, or whatever the hell else.

Obviously not, or you would have recognized immediately that "200 gallons"
was a
completely bogus number. Do you really expect us to believe you took any
college physics or math when you claimed repeatedly that the centerboard trunk
was a 27 cubic foot cavity?


However, the size in
cubic feet isn't the real issue. (If you thin it is, check it out.) -
The issue from the above discussion related to whether or not the Mac
26M and 26X had the same hull, from the same female mold.

No Jim, that's not the issue. That may be the issue you had with others, but
my
point is that you made an absurd claim, and then repeated it several times
after
the absurdity was pointed out. You even denied that you ever made absurd
claims.

Hey, he's an attorney. Absurd claims are the norm.


Frankly, I think it the drag of the open trunk is nowhere near as high as you
claim, especially at the low speeds you sail, but that's a different issue.
Claiming its 27 cubic feet is just plain stupid.

See above.

PDW

Jeff, I'm a registered patent attorney, I have over 20 hours of college
physics, 18 hours of Math, etc.

Bwahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahah a..............

Less than 2 weeks of a college (university) course and you're boasting
about it??????


Peter,
University courses are listed in credit hours here... 20 hours of Physics
would mean he has taken (5 )4 credit hour Physics classes, which along with
the math credits would give him a minor in Physics....a 4 credit hour class
meets 4 hours per week for an entire semester or term and usually has at
least 2 hours of lab time appended to it. Likewise, a 3 credit hour class
would meet three hours a week....Science, math and language courses are
generally 4 credit hours, whereas the Humanities are generally 3 credit hour
courses.

--
katysails
s/v Chanteuse
Kirie Elite 32
http://katysails.tripod.com

"Women and cats will do as they please, and men and dogs should relax
and get used to the idea." - Robert A. Heinlein



---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.726 / Virus Database: 481 - Release Date: 7/22/2004

On Sun, 25 Jul 2004 21:00:31 -0700, "Jonathan Ganz"
wrote this crap:

Good one Horass... they don't "consider" you a fag.


You don't mention what a class act your ragged-out 20' Cal is. I've
thrown away better boats.





Pathetic Earthlings! No one can save you now!

Jonathan Ganz wrote:
Not necessarily. Most likely, people don't use them very much. That's
pretty typical among boat owners in general. In fact, you claimed this
sort of thing yourself in another thread.


Jonathan,

As you probably know, the Mac line of sailboats is one of the most
popular ever built, they have been building them for over 25 years, and
there are thousands of them in service. Surely you aren't saying that,
if there are serious structural or design defects in the hull, deck, or
rigging, they could keep them a secret for all these years, with all
those thousands of boats out there? If the boats were falling apart due
to such structural or design faults, wouldn't we hear about it
somewhere? On the news, from the internet, in PS or other sailing
periodicals, for example?

The facts are that although the rigging and construction is lighter
(like a Ferrari) than on other boats, the boat is lighter also, and it
is suited for the loads experienced and does the job. (Again, if you
disagree, let's see some statistics or comprehensive reports, not just
anecdotes and opinions.)

Jim

Jonathan Ganz wrote:

Not much of an attorney are you... possibly you should look at the
facts of the case before you comment on the woman and her coffee.


The facts were that she held a hot cup of coffee between her legs when
she was driving. - Do you think she should recover from MacDonald under
those circumstances because she claimed that MacDonalds coffee was too hot?

Similarly, the skipper on the Mac that capsized was drunk, and ignored a
number of MacGregor safety warnings and load limits. - Do you think his
family should revover damages in those circumstances?

Jim

Your'e no effing lawyer. First hit on google
http://www.lectlaw.com/files/cur78.htm

the facts were that she wasn't driving and Mc D's ignored 100's of
burning complaints and continued insisting that its franchises hold
their coffee at 185 degrees, a temp sufficient to cause full thickness
burns.



On Mon, 26 Jul 2004 07:30:26 -0500, Jim Cate wrote:



Jonathan Ganz wrote:

Not much of an attorney are you... possibly you should look at the
facts of the case before you comment on the woman and her coffee.


The facts were that she held a hot cup of coffee between her legs when
she was driving. - Do you think she should recover from MacDonald under
those circumstances because she claimed that MacDonalds coffee was too hot?

Similarly, the skipper on the Mac that capsized was drunk, and ignored a
number of MacGregor safety warnings and load limits. - Do you think his
family should revover damages in those circumstances?

Jim

Here's what someone who claims to be an attorney said about the Macgregor
warnings:

"Jeff, have you had many dealings with corporate attorneys? Or tort lawyers? If
you had, you would recognize that these warnings, if taken literally, are
something like the warnings posted in our health center warning us to be sure to
wear our seat belt when using the Nautilus weight training equipment. Or, like
the long list of warnings you get when you purchase any electrical appliance,
audio equipment, etc. "

Are you claiming that lawyer was full of ****?

Actually, while I think the skipper should go to jail for Boating While
Intoxicated, the family of the children might have a rather good case. The boat
was not going fast, the conditions were calm, and while the boat might have been
overloaded according to the warnings, most people probably wouldn't think 8
adults on deck is too much for a 26 foot sailboat. I'll bet hundreds of people
saw them that night and probably no one commented that it looks dangerously
overloaded. OTOH, I've frequently seen smaller boats that appeared overloaded,
but I've almost never seem them spontaneously rollover.


"Jim Cate" wrote in message
...


Jonathan Ganz wrote:

Not much of an attorney are you... possibly you should look at the
facts of the case before you comment on the woman and her coffee.


The facts were that she held a hot cup of coffee between her legs when
she was driving. - Do you think she should recover from MacDonald under
those circumstances because she claimed that MacDonalds coffee was too hot?

Similarly, the skipper on the Mac that capsized was drunk, and ignored a
number of MacGregor safety warnings and load limits. - Do you think his
family should revover damages in those circumstances?

Jim